A new Kickstarter from 22cans seeks £450,000 for Project GODUS, a "reinvention of the god game" from this studio formed by Peter Molyneux, who pioneered the genre with Populous over two decades ago (thanks Joao). They are shooting for a release in about nine months, but will use funding beyond their target to extend the development schedule. Here's word:

Populous was created over 22 years ago, and we believe that to date, nothing has come close to emulating its powerfully godlike experience. It’s this experience we aim to reimagine. GODUS blends the power, growth and scope of Populous with the detailed construction and multiplayer excitement of Dungeon Keeper and the intuitive interface and technical innovation of Black & White. The original Populous hailed from the 8-bit era but GODUS will use the most modern technology the world has to offer.

Yeah, that'd actually be a good idea, imo, and would go a long way towards demonstrating that you took the project seriously. I have no idea how much money Molyneux has, but it's certainly something that he should consider. At the very least, he could have a condition that he'll kick in X dollars if they reach the goal.

Bhruic wrote on Nov 22, 2012, 13:29:It's a criteria that hasn't been applied to previous Kickstarter projects - even with people/companies that could afford to self-fund.

I agree that the same reaction should be applied to any project leader (or company) that can afford the kickstarter goal himself / herself / themselves. Molyneux should not be singled out.

I think things would go smoother if the Project Leader (or company) that has his / her / their own means, would state that they would "match the kickstarter funding" for the team. That way they don't look like wealthy leeches, and would probably get to their goal easier. It shows a finite budget set for the scope of the project, and shows that the leader(s) has enough faith to risk his / her / their own funds.

wtf_man wrote on Nov 22, 2012, 13:05:But that's why some are saying he should fund it himself. Then he wouldn't be accountable to anyone else.

It's a criteria that hasn't been applied to previous Kickstarter projects - even with people/companies that could afford to self-fund.

As for being accountable to the "crowd"... there isn't much accountability there... projects on Kickstarter have gotten funded and died. The Backers are SOL.

I didn't say he would be accountable to the "crowd", I said he wouldn't be accountable to anyone else. The whole point is to not have someone in a publisher-like capacity dictating what does or doesn't go in the game, or what the release schedule has to be, etc.

In most people's eyes, Crowdfunding isn't just to avoid a publisher, it's also a chance for an indie team to make a project that can't afford to, otherwise. Molyneux can afford it (At least, the kickstarter goal amount that has been set). It sort of looks like Bill Gates collecting Food Stamps.. ya know? (Not that radical, but you get what I mean)

You say "in most people's eyes", and yet what you're describing is the position that was advanced previously, and was argued against by the majority of people on this site. I'm not saying you personally argued against it, most likely you didn't. But at least some of the people in this thread did, and I'm confused as to why they aren't taking the same position here.

Bhruic wrote on Nov 22, 2012, 12:33:And again, the whole point of Kickstarter is to get your funding directly from the people who want the game so that you aren't accountable to anyone else.

True.

But that's why some are saying he should fund it himself. Then he wouldn't be accountable to anyone else.

As for being accountable to the "crowd"... there isn't much accountability there... projects on Kickstarter have gotten funded and died. The Backers are SOL.

As I said earlier... I'd like to see a populous remake, and I don't care if Molyneux is involved. I have my own reasons for not being a backer, which I already stated. At the same time... I can see why people are saying Molyneux should really be funding this himself. That wouldn't stop me from backing it, if I didn't have my other reasons, though.

In most people's eyes, Crowdfunding isn't just to avoid a publisher, it's also a chance for an indie team to make a project that can't afford to, otherwise. Molyneux can afford it (At least, the kickstarter goal amount that has been set). It sort of looks like Bill Gates collecting Food Stamps.. ya know? (Not that radical, but you get what I mean)

wtf_man wrote on Nov 22, 2012, 12:30:I think he's saying that Molneux can get funding without Kickstarter. (Not necessarily through a Publisher and not necessarily out of his own pocket, either.)

And again, the whole point of Kickstarter is to get your funding directly from the people who want the game so that you aren't accountable to anyone else. I have no problem with people not wanting to fund this, there are decent reasons not to. But this exact argument was brought up with previous Kickstart projects, and was shouted down. I'm just curious as to why it's getting so much traction with this one, and the only reason I can see is because of the dislike most people around here seem to have for Molyneux.

Dmitri_M wrote on Nov 22, 2012, 02:17:I'm not giving any money to this guy for an unreleased game. He's been playing the publisher system long enough to know how to source funds.

I thought the whole point of KS was to enable people to fund a game without having to resort to using publishers? At least, that was the argument everyone used whenever the above was brought up previously. All the sudden the rules changed just because it's someone people here don't seem to like?

I think he's saying that Molneux can get funding without Kickstarter. (Not necessarily through a Publisher and not necessarily out of his own pocket, either.)

Dmitri_M wrote on Nov 22, 2012, 02:17:I'm not giving any money to this guy for an unreleased game. He's been playing the publisher system long enough to know how to source funds.

I thought the whole point of KS was to enable people to fund a game without having to resort to using publishers? At least, that was the argument everyone used whenever the above was brought up previously. All the sudden the rules changed just because it's someone people here don't seem to like?

ASeven wrote on Nov 21, 2012, 17:26:Also, on the Kickstarter topic, those who want to fund an Elite-type of game with a lot more information available than Elite Dangerous should take a look at this little project.

That game looks and sounds amazing! The guy seems pretty young though... I may back this up if the updates convince me.

Dmitri_M wrote on Nov 22, 2012, 02:17:I'm not giving any money to this guy for an unreleased game. He's been playing the publisher system long enough to know how to source funds.

.

I agree completely. I've got serious misgivings about kickstarting anyone who is highly successful, rich, and knows how to fund games already. . . But I would totally abandon that principal for Dungeon Keeper III

While a Populous modern remake would be really cool... I'll pass as a backer. If it gets funded and produced... may buy it, if it's any good.

Besides... I don't plan on backing anything else until the first 2 games i backed are released.

As for Molyneux... I couldn't care less if he's involved or not. I'm looking more at the potential of a Populous remake, than the asshat that thinks he's some sort of great designer, and could afford to fund this himself. I would like to see what the rest of these 22cans folks come up with... and if will be a worthy successor.

You have to question the wisdom of the timing: The month before Christmas? Are you kidding me?

In all honesty, I hope this is successful and a good game comes of it, as we need more modern god games. But I actually bought Fable III on my friend's recommendation, so I don't think I'll be contributing to this.